V. SENTHUR AND ANOTHERversusM. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS,SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER

200                      [2021]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   10 S.C.R. 200                [2021] 10 S.C.R.


A                        V. SENTHUR AND ANOTHER
                                         v.
           M. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS,SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU
            PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ANOTHER
B                   (Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 638 of 2017)
                                         In
                          (Civil Appeal No. 4954 of 2016)
                               OCTOBER 01, 2021
C              [L. NAGESWARA RAO AND B.R. GAVAI, JJ.]
             Contempt of Court – Service Law – Doctrine of Merger –
      Seniority List – Dispute w.r.t fixation of inter se seniority – Principle
      of law to be applied – Wilful/deliberate non-compliance of directions
      – Division Bench of the High Court directed the official respondents
D     to consider the rank assigned to the selectees by Tamil Nadu Public
      Service Commission (TNPSC) as the basis for fixation of seniority –
      SLPs thereagainst – Dismissed by Supreme Court by a speaking
      order dtd. 22.01.16 – Contempt petitioners allege non-compliance
      of the said order, contending merger of the High Court judgment
      into it – Held: If the order of dismissal of SLPs is supported by
E     reasons, then also the doctrine of merger is not attracted – However,
      the reasons stated by the Supreme Court would attract Article 141
      and the law declared would be binding on all the courts/tribunals
      and the parties thereto – Thus, in the present case, though the
      judgment of the High Court did not merge into the order dtd.
F     22.01.16, still the declaration of law made in the said order was
      binding on the parties – While dismissing the SLPs, the Supreme
      Court held that after the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of
      Haryana and Others reported as [2003] 2 SCR 757, the fundamental
      principle governing the determination of seniority was that, it should
      be based on merit list of selection and that the list made on the basis
G     of roster point would not be permissible in law – Respondents were
      bound to follow the law laid down and determine the inter se seniority
      on the basis of selection by TNPSC and not on the basis of roster
      point – Seniority list purportedly published in accordance with the
      said order is in breach of the directions of Supreme Court –
H     Respondents to revise and publish the seniority list– Contemnors to
                                        200
V. SENTHUR v. M. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS,SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU                  201
               PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

be heard on the quantum of punishment – Constitution of India –          A
Article 141.
     Contempt of Court – Contempt jurisdiction – Limit of –
Discussed.
      Issuing directions in the contempt petitions and disposing
of the SLPs, the Court                                                   B

      HELD: 1. In a contempt jurisdiction, the court will not travel
beyond the original judgment and direction; neither would it be
permissible for the court to issue any supplementary or incidental
directions, which are not to be found in the original judgment and
order. [Para 14][209-C-D]                                                C

      2. The High Court clearly observed that the case before
the High Court was not individualistic in nature, depending upon
individual dates, facts and sequence of events. It further observed
that it arose out of the most fundamental question as to the
principle of law to be applied in the matter of fixation of seniority.   D
[Para 17][210-B]
      3.1 If the order of dismissal of SLPs is supported by reasons,
then also the doctrine of merger would not be attracted. Still the
reasons stated by the court would attract applicability of Article
141of the Constitution of India, if there is a law declared by this      E
Court which obviously would be binding on all the courts and the
tribunals in India and certainly, the parties thereto. No court,
tribunal or party would have the liberty of taking or canvassing any
view contrary to the one expressed by this Court. Such an order
would mean that it has declared the law and in that light, the case      F
was considered not fit for grant of leave. [Para 22][212-F-H]
      Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala and
      Another (2000) 6 SCC 359 : [2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538
      – relied on.
        3.2 This Court, while dismissing the SLPs against the            G
judgment clearly held that after the emergence of the judgment
in Bimlesh Tanwar, the fundamental principle governing the
determination of seniority was that, it should be based on merit
list of selection and that the list made on the basis of roster point,
                                                                         H
202            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2021] 10 S.C.R.


A     would not be permissible in law. Thus, while dismissing the SLPs,
      this Court has reiterated the legal position as laid down in the
      case of Bimlesh Tanwar to the effect that while determining
      seniority, what is relevant is the inter se merit in the selection list
      and not the roster point. It is pertinent to note that though, the
      then learned Attorney General had raised an issue with regard to
B
      a contrary view taken by the Madurai Bench of the same High
      Court, this Court clearly held that since the issue was now
      covered by the decision of this Court in Bimlesh Tanwar, the
      pendency of the SLPs challenging the judgment of Madurai Bench,
      would be of no consequence inasmuch as the said SLPs would be
C     governed by the judgment of this Court in Bimlesh Tanwar. It is
      thus clear that though it cannot be said that the judgment of the
      Madras High Court has merged into the order of this Court dated
      22nd January 2016, still the declaration of law as made in the said
      order, would be binding on all the courts and tribunals in the
      country and in any case, between the parties. In that view of the
D
      matter, the respondents were bound to follow the law laid down
      by this Court and determine the inter se seniority on the basis of
      selection by TNPSC and not on the basis of roster point. The lis
      between the parties is concerned, it has achieved finality by the
      order of this Court dated 22nd January 2016. The seniority list
E     purportedly published in accordance with the order of this Court,
      is totally in breach of the directions of this Court. The respondents
      to revise and publish the seniority list of the selectees, who were
      selected in the selection process conducted in pursuance of the
      notification issued by TNPSC dated 10th September 1999, strictly
      on the basis of the merit determined by it in the selection process
F
      and not on the basis of the roster point. The same shall be done
      within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this order. The
      persons named in order dated 11th February 2021 are guilty of
      having committed contempt of order of this Court, would be heard
      on the quantum of punishment. [Paras 23-29][213-A-E, G;
G     214-F-H]
            Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and Others (2003)
            5 SCC 604: [2003] 2 SCR 757; P.S. Ghalaut v. State of
            Haryana and Others (1995) 5 SCC 625: [1995] 2 Suppl.
            SCR 506; Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another v. Tarak
H
V. SENTHUR v. M. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS,SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU                   203
               PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

      Nath Ganguly and Others (2002) 5 SCC 352 : [2002]                   A
      3 SCR 913; Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Limited
      and Others v. Chunilal Nanda and Others (2006) 5 SCC
      399: [2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 986; V.M. Manohar Prasad
      v. N. Ratnam Raju and Another (2004) 13 SCC 610;
      Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing Director,
                                                                          B
      Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Others
      v. M.George Ravishekaran and Others (2014) 3 SCC
      373 : [2014] 4 SCR 27 – referred to.
                       Case Law Reference
[1995] 2 Suppl. SCR 506        referred to               Para 3           C
[2003] 2 SCR 757               referred to               Para 9
[2002] 3 SCR 913               referred to               Para 13
[2006] 2 Suppl. SCR 986        referred to               Para 13
[2014] 4 SCR 27                referred to               Para 13          D
[2000] 1 Suppl. SCR 538        relied on                 Para 21
       INHERENT/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Contempt
Petition (Civil) No.638 of 2017.
      In                                                                  E
      Civil Appeal No.4954 Of 2016.
      Petition filed for Contempt of this Court Order dated 22.01.2016
in SLP(C) Nos.2890-2894 of 2016 and SLP(C) No.2886 of 2016.
      With                                                                F
       Contempt Petition (Civil) No. of 2021 [Diary No.16048 of 2020]
in Slp (C) Nos.2890-2894 of 2016, Contempt Petition (Civil) No. of 2021
[Diary No.6415 of 2021] in Slp (C) No.2886 of 2016, Contempt Petition
(Civil) No.1848 of 2018 in Slp (C) No.2886 of 2016, Contempt Petition
(Civil) No.2188 of 2018 in Slp (C) No.2886 of 2016, Slp (C) Nos.12114-
                                                                          G
12117 of 2021, Contempt Petition (Civil) No.1247 of 2019 in Slp (C)
No.2886 of 2016, Contempt Petition (Civil) No.687 of 2021 in Slp (C)
Nos.2890-2894 of 2016,
      Nithin Saravanan, Ms. Arunima Singh, Karunakar Mahalik,
Ms. Priyadarshini, Ms. Ridhima Malhotra, Prashant Bhushan, Pranav
                                                                          H
204             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 10 S.C.R.


A     Sachdeva, N. Subramaniyan, Jatin Bhardwaj, Ms. Shantha D. Raman,
      Garvesh Kabra, Arihant Jain, Ms. Neha Rathi, Advs. for the Appellants.
            Amit Anand Tiwari, V. Krishnamurthy, AAGs, V. Giri, P. Wilson,
      C. S. Vaidyanathan, Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Advs., Vinodh Kanna B., M.
      Yogesh Kanna, T. R. B. Sivakumar, Ms. C. N. G. Niraimathi, Dr. Joseph
B     Aristotle S., Nitish Raj, Akshay Nagarajan, Mohammed Sadique T. A.,
      Ms. Preeti Singh, Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Advs. for the Respondents.
             The Order of the Court was passed by
             B. R. GAVAI, J.

C           1. The present contempt petitions have been filed by the petitioners
      praying for initiation of contempt proceedings against the alleged
      contemnors-respondents for willfully disobeying the order passed by this
      Court dated 22nd January 2016 in SLP(C) Nos. 2890-2894 of 2016 and
      SLP(C) No. 2886 of 2016.

D           2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the present petitions are as
      under:-
             The contempt petitioners had filed writ petitions before the Single
      Judge of the Madras High Court being aggrieved by the fixation of inter
      se seniority list published on 29th April 2004. The petitioners along with
      the contesting respondents were selected in pursuance of the selection
E
      process held on the basis of the notification dated 10th September 1999,
      issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred
      to as “TNPSC”). Upon selection, the selectees were appointed in the
      Public Works Department of the State of Tamil Nadu and the Highways
      Department in the year 2000.
F
             3. After a period of 4 years from the date of joining of the selectees,
      the seniority list came to be notified on 29th April 2004. One R.
      Balakrishnan made a representation contending therein that though he
      was a more meritorious candidate belonging to the Backward Class
      category, he was allotted to the General Turn (open category) and kept
G     at Serial No. 172 of the roster point. It was however his contention that
      the other persons belonging to the Backward Classes, who were less
      meritorious, were placed higher in the list and given seniority over and
      above him since they were placed against reserved vacancies. The
      representation of R. Balakrishnan was rejected by TNPSC vide order
      dated 20th December 2004, on the ground that the roster point itself
H
V. SENTHUR v. M. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS,SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU                           205
       PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

determined the seniority, in view of the decision of this Court in the case       A
of P.S. Ghalaut v. State of Haryana and Others1. Being aggrieved by
the said order dated 20th December 2004, R. Balakrishnan and few
others filed various writ petitions before the Madras High Court. The
said writ petitions came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated
18th October 2012, passed by the Single Judge of the Madras High Court,
                                                                                  B
on the ground of delay and laches.
       4. Being aggrieved thereby, the original writ petitioners preferred
appeals before the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The
Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 31 st March 2015
(hereinafter referred to as “the first judgment”), allowed the appeals
and set aside the judgment and order dated 18th October 2012, passed              C
by the Single Judge and directed the official respondents to take the
rank assigned by TNPSC to the selectees, as the basis for fixation of
seniority. The Division Bench also directed TNPSC to issue appropriate
orders within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
the said order. The same came to be challenged before this Court by               D
TNPSC vide SLP(C) Nos. 2890-2894 of 2016. This Court vide its
judgment and order dated 22nd January 2016, by a speaking order,
dismissed the same. The present contempt petitions are filed contending
non-compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 22nd January
2016.
                                                                                  E
       5. Certain developments which took place in the meanwhile also
need to be noted. To overcome the first judgment of the Madras High
Court as affirmed by this Court, the State of Tamil Nadu enacted Tamil
Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 (hereinafter
referred to as “the said Act”). Section 40 of the said Act provided that
the seniority of a person in service will be determined in accordance             F
with the rule of reservation and the order of rotation. The same came to
be challenged in a batch of writ petitions before the Madras High Court.
The Division Bench of the Madras High Court vide judgment and order
dated 15th November 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “the second
judgment”), allowed the said writ petitions. It declared Sections 1(2), 40        G
and 70 of the said Act as ultra vires and unconstitutional. It further directed
to redo the exercise of fixation of seniority within a period of 12 weeks
from the date of receipt of the copy of said order. The said order of the
High Court dated 15th November 2019, was challenged before this Court
1
    (1995) 5 SCC 625                                                              H
206            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 10 S.C.R.


A     by filing SLP(C) Nos. 2861-2876 of 2020. This Court passed the following
      order on 6th July 2020:-
            “Permission to file Special Leave Petition(s) is granted.
            Application for impleadment is allowed to the extent of intervention.

B           There is absolutely no merit in these petitions. The Special Leave
            Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed.
            Pending application(s) is/are disposed of.”
             6. After dismissal of the said SLPs, the official respondents had
      filed review petitions before the Division Bench of the High Court. So
C     also, certain contempt petitions were filed by the selectees, who were
      aggrieved by non-revision of the seniority list. The Division Bench of the
      Madras High Court vide judgment and order dated 26th March 2021
      dismissed the review petitions, so also, the contempt petitions. The same
      is challenged before this Court by the selectees, who were aggrieved by
      non-revision of the seniority list, by filing SLP(C) Nos. 12114-12117 of
D     2021.
             7. The contempt petitions have been listed before this Court on
      various dates. Vide order dated 11th February 2021, this Court passed
      the following order:-

E           “In the meanwhile, the judgment dated 22.01.2016 shall be
            implemented. In case the judgment is not implemented by that
            date, the following alleged contemnors/respondents shall be present
            in this court on the next date of hearing:
            C.P.(C)No.638 of 2017 in C.A.No.4954 of 2016
F               1) M. Vijayakumar
                2) S. Thinakaran
            Dy No.16048 of 2020 in SLP(C) Nos.2890-2894 of 2016:
                1) Dr. S. Swarna
G               2) K. Ramamoorthy
                3) K. Nanthakumar
            C.P.(C) No.1247 of 2019 in SLP (C) No.2886 of 2016:
                1) K. Shanmugam
H               2) K. Nanthakumar
V. SENTHUR v. M. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS,SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU                         207
       PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

             3) Dr. K.Manivasan                                                 A
             4) K. Ramamurthy
         C.P.(C)No.1848 of 2018 and C.P.(C)No.2188 of 2018 in SLP
         (C)No.2886 of 2016:
             1) K. Nanthakumar                                                  B
             2) S. K. Prabhakar
             3) S. Bakthavathchalam”
      8. The contempt petitions have also been listed thereafter on
various dates. Today, we have heard Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned
                                                                                C
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of TNPSC, Shri Mukul
Rohatgi, Shri V. Giri and Shri P. Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents-alleged contemnors, at length.
         9. Shri Prashant Bhushan submitted that the first judgment has
                                                                                D
been merged into the order passed by this Court dated 22nd January
2016. He submitted that in the said order, this Court has categorically
held that in view of the judgment in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar v.
State of Haryana and Others2, the seniority list has to be prepared on
the basis of merit list of selection and that the list drawn on roster point
would not be valid in law. He submitted that the respondent authorities         E
have not implemented the said order, on the contrary, a revised seniority
list is published on 13th March 2021, contending that the said seniority list
has been published on the basis of the orders passed by this Court. He
submitted that a perusal of the said seniority list would further show that
the said list is prepared totally in breach of the judgment in the case of
                                                                                F
Bimlesh Tanwar (supra). It is thus submitted that by publishing the said
list, the respondent authorities have not only committed the aggravated
contempt of court but have also committed perjury.
      10. Shri C.S. Vaidyanathan, Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Shri V. Giri and
Shri P. Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, on the contrary, submitted that the contempt petitions are         G
without any merit.
      11. In a nutshell, the contentions as raised on behalf of the said
respondents are thus:-
2
    (2003) 5 SCC 604                                                            H
208                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 10 S.C.R.


A           (i)      In the first judgment, the Division Bench of the Madras
                     High Court had granted relief to the individual petitioners.
                     Understanding the same, the respondent authorities had
                     issued a fresh seniority list, thereby granting the requisite
                     seniority to the individual petitioners.
B           (ii)     Perusal of the second judgment of the Madras High Court
                     dated 15th November 2019, would further fortify that the
                     relief granted in earlier round was restricted to individual
                     petitioners. Relying on certain observations in the said
                     judgment, it is submitted that the Division Bench has clearly
                     held that the delay, laches, acquiescence and accrued right
C                    would be the relevant factors and as such, the individuals
                     who were not petitioners in the first round, are not entitled
                     to get the seniority as per the first judgment of the Madras
                     High Court.
            (iii)    That the rights of the parties have been crystallized for
D                    more than almost two decades and upsetting those at this
                     stage, would cause great heart-burn amongst the employees
                     in the cadre.
            (iv)     That some of the employees have accepted the seniority
                     list and now the entire exercise cannot be redone to thrust
E                    the revised seniority on such employees.
            (v)      That in any case, the judgment of the Division Bench of the
                     Madras High Court was capable of being interpreted as
                     applying only to the individuals and therefore, even if the
                     official respondents have incorrectly understood the
F                    judgment, the non-compliance of the directions cannot be
                     considered to be willful or deliberate and as such, the action
                     for contempt would not lie.
             12. In addition, Shri Rohatgi submitted that the contempt, if any, is
      of the order passed by the High Court. He submitted that since by the
G     order dated 22nd January 2016, this Court has dismissed the SLPs albeit
      giving certain reasons, the same would not amount to merger, and as
      such, it cannot be held that the respondents have committed contempt of
      this Court. He further submitted that if tomorrow, merely upon dismissal
      of SLPs against the judgments of the High Court, the contempt petitions
      are entertained contending contempt of this Court, it will open a floodgate
H
V. SENTHUR v. M. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS,SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU                        209
       PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

of contempt petitions. He submitted that such a practice would not be          A
conducive to the interest of justice.
      13. Shri Vaidyanathan relied on the following judgments of this
Court in support of his submissions that, in contempt proceedings, the
Court cannot travel beyond the original judgment and order.
      Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another v. Tarak Nath Ganguly                  B
and Others3, Midnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Limited and Others
v. Chunilal Nanda and Others4, V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam
Raju and Another5 and Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman and Managing
Director, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited and Others v.
M. George Ravishekaran and Others 6.                                           C
       14. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that in a contempt
jurisdiction, the court will not travel beyond the original judgment and
direction; neither would it be permissible for the court to issue any
supplementary or incidental directions, which are not to be found in the
original judgment and order. The court is only concerned with the wilful       D
or deliberate non-compliance of the directions issued in the original
judgment and order.
      15. At the outset, we may clarify that in the present proceedings,
we are only concerned with the contempt of the order passed by this
Court dated 22nd January 2016.                                                 E
       16. Insofar as the contention of the respondents that the issue
before the High Court in the first round was individualistic in nature is
concerned, it will be relevant to refer to the following observations passed
by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in the first judgment:-
       “37. …..                                                                F
       (ii) The cases on hand are not individualistic in nature, depending
       upon individual dates, facts and sequence of events. The cases
       on hand arise out of a most fundamental question as to the principle
       of law to be applied in the matter of fixation of seniority. The
       grievance of the writ petitioners was not individualistic, depending    G
       for their adjudication, upon distinct facts. These cases question

3
  (2002) 5 SCC 352
4
  (2006) 5 SCC 399
5
  (2004) 13 SCC 610
6
  (2014) 3 SCC 373                                                             H
210            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 10 S.C.R.


A           the very foundation on which seniority was sought to be determined
            on principle. To such cases, the enabling provision under Rule
            35(f) entitling the department to summarily reject the claim of the
            individuals, cannot be invoked.”
             17. It can thus be seen that the High Court has clearly observed
B     that the case before the High Court was not individualistic in nature,
      depending upon individual dates, facts and sequence of events. It has
      further observed that it arose out of the most fundamental question as to
      the principle of law to be applied in the matter of fixation of seniority.
             18. Having observed this, in the operative part, the Division Bench
C     of the Madras High Court in the first judgment held thus:-
            “85. In view of the above, the writ appeals are allowed, the order
            of the learned judge is set aside and the writ petitions filed by the
            appellants are allowed. There will be a direction to the official
            respondents to take the rank assigned by the Service Commission
D           to the selectees, as the basis for fixation of seniority and issue
            appropriate orders within a period of 4 weeks from the date of
            receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no order as to costs.”
             19. It could thus clearly be seen that the Division Bench of the
      Madras High Court in the first judgment issued a direction to the official
E     respondents to take the rank assigned by TNPSC to the selectees as the
      basis for fixation of seniority and appropriate orders were directed to be
      issued by TNPSC within a period of 4 weeks from the receipt of the
      copy of the said order.
             20. The basis for allowing the writ petitions by the High Court
F     was the judgment of this Court in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar (supra),
      which held that the seniority has to be determined, not on the basis of
      roster point but on the basis of the seniority assigned at the time of
      selection of the selectees. This Court, while dismissing the SLPs vide
      order dated 22nd January 2016, observed thus:-
            “The fundamental principle which has been applied by the Division
G
            Bench in the cases on hand relates to the question as to what
            should be the basis for drawing a seniority list. In that context, the
            Division Bench has noted that at the time when the Service
            Commission drew the list in 2000 the same was in tune with the
            judgment of this Court in P.S. Ghalaut v. State of Haryana &
H           Others, reported in (1995) 5 SCC 625. The Court also found that
V. SENTHUR v. M. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS,SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU                            211
       PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

         the said list which was approved by the State Government did not          A
         achieve the finality and that ultimately when the seniority list came
         to be issued on 29.2.2004, by which time the judgment of this
         Court in Bimlesh Tanwar v. State of Haryana and others, reported
         in (2003) 5 SCC 604 had came into effect which reversed the
         judgment in Ghalaut (supra). The Division Bench, therefore, held
                                                                                   B
         that there was no delay in the challenge made to the seniority list.
         After the emergence of the judgment in Bimlesh Tanwar
         (supra), the fundamental principle relating to drawl of
         seniority list was that it should be based on merit list of
         selection and that the list drawn based on roster point can
         have no application for the purpose of seniority list.                    C
         As the said fundamental principle was applied by the High
         Court in passing the impugned judgment, we do not find
         any merit in these special leave petitions. The special leave
         petitions are dismissed.
         The learned Attorney General for India, appearing for the Tamil           D
         Nadu Public Service Commission, raised an issue that with
         reference to a contra view taken by another Judgment of Madurai
         Bench of the Madras High Court, at the instance of one of the
         employees an SLP is pending in this Court. Since the issue is now
         covered by the decision of this Court in Bimlesh Tanwar (supra),          E
         the pendency of the said SLP will be of no consequence as the
         said SLP should also be covered by the said judgment of this
         Court, namely, Bimlesh Tanwar (supra).”
                                                          [emphasis supplied]
      21. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this       F
Court in the case of Kunhayammed and Others v. State of Kerala
and Another7:-
         “27. A petition for leave to appeal to this Court may be dismissed
         by a non-speaking order or by a speaking order. Whatever be the
         phraseology employed in the order of dismissal, if it is a non-           G
         speaking order, i.e., it does not assign reasons for dismissing the
         special leave petition, it would neither attract the doctrine of merger
         so as to stand substituted in place of the order put in issue before
         it nor would it be a declaration of law by the Supreme Court
7
    (2000) 6 SCC 359                                                               H
212             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 10 S.C.R.


A            under Article 141 of the Constitution for there is no law which has
             been declared. If the order of dismissal be supported by reasons
             then also the doctrine of merger would not be attracted because
             the jurisdiction exercised was not an appellate jurisdiction but
             merely a discretionary jurisdiction refusing to grant leave to appeal.
             We have already dealt with this aspect earlier. Still the reasons
B
             stated by the Court would attract applicability of Article 141 of
             the Constitution if there is a law declared by the Supreme Court
             which obviously would be binding on all the courts and tribunals in
             India and certainly the parties thereto. The statement contained
             in the order other than on points of law would be binding on the
C            parties and the court or tribunal, whose order was under challenge
             on the principle of judicial discipline, this Court being the Apex
             Court of the country. No court or tribunal or parties would have
             the liberty of taking or canvassing any view contrary to the one
             expressed by this Court. The order of Supreme Court would mean
             that it has declared the law and in that light the case was considered
D
             not fit for grant of leave. The declaration of law will be governed
             by Article 141 but still, the case not being one where leave was
             granted, the doctrine of merger does not apply. The Court
             sometimes leaves the question of law open. Or it sometimes briefly
             lays down the principle, may be, contrary to the one laid down by
E            the High Court and yet would dismiss the special leave petition.
             The reasons given are intended for purposes of Article 141. This
             is so done because in the event of merely dismissing the special
             leave petition, it is likely that an argument could be advanced in
             the High Court that the Supreme Court has to be understood as
F            not to have differed in law with the High Court.”
              22. It is thus clear that this Court in unequivocal terms has held
      that if the order of dismissal of SLPs is supported by reasons, then also
      the doctrine of merger would not be attracted. Still the reasons stated by
      the court would attract applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution of
G     India, if there is a law declared by this Court which obviously would be
      binding on all the courts and the tribunals in India and certainly, the parties
      thereto. It has been held that no court, tribunal or party would have the
      liberty of taking or canvassing any view contrary to the one expressed
      by this Court. Such an order would mean that it has declared the law
      and in that light, the case was considered not fit for grant of leave.
H
V. SENTHUR v. M. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS,SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU                          213
       PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

        23. This Court, while dismissing the SLPs against the first judgment,    A
has clearly held that after the emergence of the judgment in Bimlesh
Tanwar (supra), the fundamental principle governing the determination
of seniority was that, it should be based on merit list of selection and that
the list made on the basis of roster point, would not be permissible in law.
It could thus be seen that while dismissing the SLPs, this Court has
                                                                                 B
reiterated the legal position as laid down in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar
(supra) to the effect that while determining seniority, what is relevant is
the inter se merit in the selection list and not the roster point.
       24. It is pertinent to note that though, the then learned Attorney
General had raised an issue with regard to a contrary view taken by the
                                                                                 C
Madurai Bench of the same High Court, this Court clearly held that
since the issue was now covered by the decision of this Court in Bimlesh
Tanwar (supra), the pendency of the SLPs challenging the judgment of
Madurai Bench, would be of no consequence inasmuch as the said SLPs
would be governed by the judgment of this Court in Bimlesh Tanwar
(supra).                                                                         D
       25. It is thus clear that though it cannot be said that the second
judgment of the Madras High Court has merged into the order of this
Court dated 22nd January 2016, still the declaration of law as made in
the said order, would be binding on all the courts and tribunals in the
country and in any case, between the parties.                                    E
       26. In that view of the matter, the respondents were bound to
follow the law laid down by this Court and determine the inter se seniority
on the basis of selection by TNPSC and not on the basis of roster point.
       27. At the cost of repetition, we may clarify that though various         F
arguments were advanced with regard to the merits of the matter by the
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities,
we cannot go into those aspects inasmuch as we are exercising limited
jurisdiction of contempt. Insofar as the lis between the parties is
concerned, it has achieved finality by the order of this Court dated 22nd
January 2016. We find that the seniority list, which is purportedly published    G
in accordance with the order of this Court, is totally in breach of the
directions of this Court. A first glance at the list would reveal that various
selectees, who have received much less marks, are placed above the
selectees who have received higher marks. We, therefore, have no
hesitation to hold that the following persons named in our order dated
                                                                                 H
214            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 10 S.C.R.


A     11th February 2021, are guilty of having committed contempt of order of
      this Court:-
            “C.P.(C)No.638 of 2017 in C.A.No.4954 of 2016
                1) M. Vijayakumar
B               2) S. Thinakaran
            Dy No.16048 of 2020 in SLP(C) Nos.2890-2894 of 2016:
                1) Dr. S. Swarna
                2) K. Ramamoorthy
C               3) K. Nanthakumar
            C.P.(C) No.1247 of 2019 in SLP (C) No.2886 of 2016:
                1) K. Shanmugam
                2) K. Nanthakumar
D               3) Dr. K.Manivasan
                4) K. Ramamurthy
            C.P.(C)No.1848 of 2018 and C.P.(C)No.2188 of 2018 in SLP
            (C)No.2886 of 2016:
E               1) K. Nanthakumar
                2) S. K. Prabhakar
                3) S. Bakthavathchalam”
             28. We therefore direct the respondents to revise and publish the
F     seniority list of the selectees, who were selected in the selection process
      conducted in pursuance of the notification issued by TNPSC dated 10th
      September 1999, strictly on the basis of the merit determined by it in the
      selection process and not on the basis of the roster point. The same shall
      be done within a period of 12 weeks from the date of this order.

G            29. Insofar as the issue with regard to quantum of punishment to
      be imposed upon the aforesaid contemnors is concerned, the matter be
      kept on 10th January 2022. We clarify that on the said date, the persons
      named in paragraph (27) who have been held guilty of contempt of this
      Court by us, shall remain present before this Court and would be heard
      on the quantum of punishment.
H
V. SENTHUR v. M. VIJAYAKUMAR, IAS,SECRETARY, TAMIL NADU                        215
       PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

      30. Insofar as SLP(C) Nos. 12114-12117 of 2021 are concerned,            A
in view of the order passed by us in the contempt petitions, no order is
necessary. Accordingly, the said SLPs are disposed of.


Divya Pandey                                              Directions issued.
                                                                               B




                                                                               C




                                                                               D




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H